Jump to content

jws008

Members
  • Posts

    293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jws008

  1. On 4/26/2021 at 12:03 PM, Gothamite said:

     

    The fetishism knows no bounds. 

     

    Pretty soon they'll start issuing rank stripes/insignia to players based on seniority with the club.

    Don't give them any ideas!

  2. It seems to me that a lot of the recent Nike designs boil down to "How bad was the previous set?"

    Just to cite two examples (and the different meanings I have in that statement):

     

    The Rams last set (I'm ignoring the post-move from STL changes here) was pretty basic or at worst a modernized version of a classic Rams uniform. Nike, instead of making basic changes, comes up with gradients, "bone", the banana moon logo on the helmets (sorry I can't un-see that), tags on the shoulders, and brighter colors.

    The Bengals last set was messy, though I personally never got beyond hating the side panels. Nike comes up with a more basic, stripped down uniform (with a few quirks, like the second pants).

    It's almost like if a team's last set could be tweaked to be good to very good, it's time to let the designers go nuts. OTOH, if the previous set is a clown suit (or close to it), then they can come up with something basic and good, but usually a few changes away from being great.

  3. I'm still having the exact same reaction I initially did every time  I see another photo of this Red Sox uniform:
    "Wow! MLB is bringing back the Boston Bees!" 

    After a split-second, I go back to merely being disappointed, then annoyed at the whole concept after few more seconds go by. As others have said, there are so many other better ways/programs/reasons to justify coming up with another alternate uniform for each MLB team. Copying what the NBA did just seems like a grab for more $$$.

  4. I'm very reluctantly accepting the Mets black uniforms coming back, but ideally:

    1. The "new" design Cohen alluded to means that the drop-shadows are gone and not that some other bad design feature has been added (shudders just thinking about that).
    2. Their use is limited, hopefully to something like a half dozen home Friday night "blackout" games or something similar.

    Really, there's so much that they could do with an alternate set with just orange, blue, and white, that I'd almost rather see them come up with a new set for the same purpose. Just to cite one example, I've often wondered if they could "modernize" some of the old 1920s NY Giants sets with the interlocking NY (that's now on the Mets cap) on the right chest or sleeve.

  5. 10 hours ago, KittSmith_95 said:

    Happy to see that we're getting new jerseys for Cincy. Excited to see what they come up with, hoping they don't mess this up. 

    As for my Top 5 changes: 

    1. Arizona: It's time. Please. 
    2. Dallas: Ready for people to be mad at me, but enough is enough with the mismatched colours throughout the set. Choose a shade of blue & grey and use them for all your jerseys, please and thank you. Oh, and drop the black outlines. Seriously. 
    3. NY Giants: Use the Colour Rush set as a base and make a matching blue. Basically, take the '99 set, use the "NY" on your helmet if you want (Either logo is fine in my books), but include grey pants in the set too, preferrably the ones with the thick RBR stripes instead of the thin spaced out ones, and you'll have a great look distinct enough from the Bills so nobody can get mad. 
    4. Denver: I don't hate this look, but it is dated and the CR is superior. 
    5. Take your pick between Baltimore, Philly & New Orleans. None of these are pressing for me, but at the same time I'd be happy to see it. 

    I could not agree more on #2. The other night I had NFL Network on as "background noise" and the highlight film for Super Bowl VI was on. I couldn't believe how much better those Cowboy uniforms looked (even with a slight mismatch of the grey pants with the helmets, though that could have been the film's color levels) than the mismatched mess Dallas has worn for the past 20 years now. 

  6. 2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

     


    Agreed.

     

    Set aside the fact that Lombardi himself was color-blind and consequently notoriously disinterested in color schemes (he changed the shade of Washington’s jerseys because his chosen manufacturer didn’t have the right one).  But Lombardi didn’t introduce the gold helmet.  The Packers had been matching gold pants to gold helmets for a quarter-century before they hired Vince away from the Giants. 

    Particularly in Lombardi's era, (late 1950s thru the early 1970s), I am sure that a lot of uniform color decisions came down to "this is what the manufacturer can provide". I also think that this is something that tends to be forgotten considering what can be done today. In fact, when a manufacturer has trouble producing a proper color (Hello, Eagles); it becomes a "failure" by that manufacturer.

  7. 49 minutes ago, ramsker said:

     

    I get what you're saying, but Nike even admitted the mistake, and said they will correct it. https://lakersnation.com/lakers-will-revisit-color-of-gold-nike-icon-jersey-amid-fan-complaints/2019/11/29/

     

    I don't know, I'm reading the quote in that article, and it sounds to me as though Nike is not admitting there's a mistake in the current yellow (though clearly they also admit there was an issue in the 2018-19 season with the shade, though someone on the Lakers had to OK that, too), but that if the Lakers want a darker color like the pre-Kobe uniforms going forward that they will try to accommodate that wish:


    “The most often complained-about thing is that the gold is wrong,” Lakers chief operating officer Tim Harris said. “The first year we had the Nike uniform the gold did look like a highlighter but Nike tells us the gold that we wear now matches the gold back in the early days of Kobe [Bryant]. What fans are upset about is the evolution of the color but we were told they have the gold back to what it used to be but a lot of people think it’s still too yellow so we’re going to look at that after the season.”

     

    I still stand by my original point, which is that with all franchises, colors will evolve and change over the long-term. I doubt that there is any franchise, even the ones we think of as unchangeable classics, that haven't seen some slight change in coloring or logo or insignia or placement or some other design element over the long course of time. 

     

    And yeah, I like the Lakers in a less bright yellow, too. And sorry to "Laker-jack" the topic.

  8. 5 hours ago, L10nheart404 said:

    I still can get over how gorgeous the Rams' helmets are. Regardless of your feelings on the uniforms , I think this beauty Is a home run...EX6CGjIUEAAvEsF.jpg

    Well, that's your opinion.

     

    Some of us consider this a failure, due to the segmentation, the banana and moon shapes, and the lack of a curlicue. I mean, I'll call it maybe a "cheap infield single", since the colors are pretty good.

     

    It's a "home run" of a helmet for a team named the "Banana Moons", I'll grant that.

     

    But that's just my opinion.

  9. Just now, IceCap said:

    This doesn't discount the "classic-ness" of the Yankees' classic look. 

     

    Yes. Uniform evolutions happen. The Habs' classic CH has changed too. As have the Leafs' leaf and the Bears' C. 

     

    Exactly. 
    People here are going on about how "oh you would have been disappointed with anything not the throwbacks." 

    No. That's incorrect. You can tweak the throwbacks. You can evolve the Rams' classic look. They almost did that with the home look, but botched it with segmented horns, gradient numbers, and weird name patches. 

    Still, the overall idea is there. 

     

    The road uniform is just a complete curveball that almost feels like a weird alternate that got promoted to primary road status because someone lost the real road set in the mail. 

     

    And not a good curveball either. The colours all run together, the "horns" on the sleeves seem random...it all feels so experimental. Which I suppose is laudable in its own way, but "experimental" implies that there will be failures. 

    And someone should have seen this and said "no, this is too far." 

     

    You're right on the money. 

     

    There were ways to evolve the Rams' classic look. Look at what the Chargers and Browns did. 

    What the Rams did was get too enamoured with their own "vision" that they lost sight of the very attainable goal- a nice LA Rams uniform. 

    Well, like I said, we agree on a lot. 😉

  10. 5 hours ago, _J_ said:

     

     

    Men's Nike Bone Los Angeles Rams Sideline Early Season Performance Polo

    Bone does look good on the sideline apparel and works with the colors. Still shouldnt be the primary road though.

    It’s a nice looking polo for the LA Country Club or LA Sports Bar or Lou and Albert’s Drain Cleaning company.

     

    It’s even a nice looking sideline football polo, as soon as you swap out the LA logo for the Ram’s head (any version of it). That would also be true if it were bright white, instead of off-white or light grey or whatever it was they called this color again.

     

    😉

  11. On 5/16/2020 at 7:29 PM, IceCap said:

    I get all of that, and maybe I am just being unrealistic but in my mind? Every redesign should happen with the intent at longevity. Not everyone is going to be the Yankees and Canadiens who will be wearing the same thing until the heat death of the universe, but the idea of disposable design seems wrong to me.

    ......

    And I fully expect even teams like the Yankees and Habs will bend, if not break.

    Well, in the Yankees case it has already happened (in a sense).

     

    My favorite uniform fact ever is that Babe Ruth never (as an active player, since you can find photos of him in it from after his career) wore the classic Yankees home uniform. His were just plain pinstripes, with no interlocking NY on the chest. And for a portion of his Yankees career, the road uniform had “Yankees” across the chest, not the classic “New York” we all think of.

     

    Never mind that the shape of that NY has also evolved over time, too.

     

    Granted we’re talking here about evolutionary changes to the Yankees uniform, which, from what I read of your posts (and what I write in mine) is something we’re both comfortable with.

     

    My point is that everything does change; I think you and I are in agreement that evolutionary change is what we want to see in most good designs (this does not mean we are anti-modern or even anti-revolutionary). But we don’t want design without basis or logic or reasoning behind it (part of what is bad about this Rams redesign, as I posted and ranted about a few pages back).
     

    Dodgers blue has changed over the years and will again. The Yankees might go back to “Yankees” on the chest of the road uniform. Both would be evolutionary in most executions, and while we might not like it, it would be acceptable. I think that this is all I want out of any new uniform design. (I think I’m expressing this right for IceCap, too; he can feel free to point out if I’m wrong).

     

    I’m not going to re-post the litany of things I find bad about this Rams redesign all over again, but I just think they missed the mark — they went for revolutionary and missed badly with a poor design (especially when evolutionary was what seemed to be wanted and anticipated).

     

    Sorry for the long post...

  12. On 5/16/2020 at 3:52 PM, ramsker said:

     

    They came close to the correct colors. To me, they are much to bright, especially the yellow. I feel like it's a Lakers' Gold Pt. 2.

     

    Seems like that's Nike style. Highlighter bold and bright colors to make you notice them. I find it off-putting. 

     

    spacer.png

    But, here’s that design/fashion thing again — the current trend with a lot of things that are yellow is to make them brighter and lighter. And five, ten, or fifteen years from now that cycle might have changed again (and again and again). It’s easy to blame Nike (and it’s fine not liking a trend or color choice). But I think stuff like this is always going to happen in design over time, irregardless of who is actually doing the design.

  13. I'm still at a big loss at how a designer looked at these uniforms as a set, even in their final review, and said, "Yup! This set is perfect!"

     

    Put aside what you think of the new horns on the helmet.

    Put aside the whole idea of "bone" and a non-white light uniform.

    Put aside the stupid yellow thread and the patch it "holds in place".

    (Seriously, I dislike all of these decisions, but can understand why they were chosen from a design viewpoint)

     

    How in a final review process are the following questions not asked:

    1. Why are we using gradient numbers on one uniform and not the other?

    2. Why are we using two different shoulder and sleeve designs for the horns?

    2a. Why are the shoulder horns and sleeves different colors on each set when they don't have to be?

    3. Why does one uniform have TV numbers and the other doesn't?

    4. Why is one patch matching the color of the jersey and the other one doesn't?

    5. In summary, does anyone else look at the two main uniforms (leaving out the yellow pants here) and wonder why they look like they were put together by two different committees?

     

    That's why I think this is such a poor design, and why I think it's not only 30th in the NFL's current uniform sets, but might be the worst uniform set in the league's history, though the recent Bucs and Jags sets give it a run for the title. I mean, at least the "alarm clock" numbers and the two-toned helmet were used on all combinations of those sets.

  14. I know I've mostly made jokes in my posts since the Rams uniform unveiling, but I still can't help but think that these were the result of trying too hard to be "new".

     

    Clearly, the team wanted something "new", which I still think is the major flaw in their thinking. I mean, I get it, you're moving into a new stadium, you want new and shiny and even revolutionary to match up with your new multi-billion dollar palace.

     

    But, the reality is, you're not new and shiny. Even, for a moment, putting aside your previous history in the City of Angels, you've been back in LA for four seasons now, including a Super Bowl run in the postseason. I think it's clear that people wanted an evolution of what you were in the previous stint in LA, combined with your recent set (which, again, you've worn for four seasons in Los Angeles). It's why most people are happy with the royal blue and bright yellow colors -- that points back to your roots. It's why there's such a split on the new horns, though I think even those who like it would admit it isn't an improvement on the old horn (and I think the majority opinion is that old horns > new horns). 

     

    Basically, I think an "evolution" from the classic Rams set is what was expected; instead, they came up with something that vaguely (in two colors) relates to what the LA Rams have always looked like.

     

    Just my two cents.

     

    Oh, and I'm now very curious about these two alts that are coming in the next two years -- I'm wondering, especially after the reactions to the 2020 set, if those will revert to more of a classic look (or an evolution of it) versus more "new" and "shiny".

  15. I say it's time for the Rams to "own" their new branding.

    Let's combine the crescent moon reaction to the new helmet logo with Dickerson's "two bananas" comment:

     

    Ladies and gentlemen, introducing the all-new Los Angeles Banana Moons!

     

    Heck, there's even a new team song (everyone can sing along!):
    "It's only a banana moon, sailing over a monkey in a tree..."

  16. I now think that this thread should be preserved for the ages as a historical reference for sports franchise branding, as required reading for any franchise undergoing a re-design.

     

    The Chargers are an example, for the most part, about how to do this correctly.

     

    The Rams are an example, in just about every single way, of how to do this poorly.

  17. 5 minutes ago, jws008 said:

    I also think we tend to read too much into if a place is a good [insert sport here] town or not. I think that description almost always dates back to a winning tradition (by which I don't mean a number of championships; I mean being competitive for an extended period of time). 

    To tie this back to LA for a minute: The Rams definitely have an edge over the Chargers in this market, because they have had a past winning tradition in the LA market. But, I also guarantee that if the Rams play poorly over the next 6-8 seasons, while the Chargers go to the playoffs in 6 of those same 8 seasons; the market will turn in the Chargers' favor.

    It may never happen.

    Since this is also the NFL we're discussing, I'm sure both teams will be profitable over those seasons (Maybe not to the same extent, but that's TBD). It's why I don't think the Chargers are headed anywhere (even back to San Diego) in the next decade or so.

  18. On 5/3/2020 at 4:52 PM, IceCap said:

    St. Louis seems entitled to me. 

    And being a good baseball town doesn't mean it's a good football town. 

    As a non-native resident of the area, I think your choice of "entitled" is a poor description of how St. Louis fans actually feel.

     

    I think it's much more "spurred" or "discarded". I'd say the general feeling, (from their point of view) is that both the league and Kroenke were set on LA and if that meant sacrificing a team and fanbase in St. Louis, it was fine. (I'm going to ignore the whole discussion on whether that's true or not; I'm merely expressing what I believe is the general fans' belief). My point is that I think there's more "hate" and emotion involved in how they feel.

     

    I also think we tend to read too much into if a place is a good [insert sport here] town or not. I think that description almost always dates back to a winning tradition (by which I don't mean a number of championships; I mean being competitive for an extended period of time). 

  19. 20 hours ago, Gothamite said:

    I don't mind a hat-on-a-hat; doesn't bother me with the Orioles' logo. I'm still hoping for a Brewers Barrelman alternate, and he wears a cap too.

     

    May be an unpopular opinion, but I still think that Patriots' tricorner logo was the best one they've ever worn.

     

    xb8jqrbqtsmlfvqsvdv2.jpg

     

    It was even better without the numbers.

     

    h33V6me.jpg

     

    I personally agree with you about this being an underrated helmet logo, but I've also had a few people, inevitably much younger than me, ask why the Patriots had a "stylized U" or a "flattened horseshoe" on their helmets.

  20. On 4/26/2020 at 8:15 PM, IceCap said:

    I still can't fathom how anyone saw that uniform and went "yep, this is acceptable for a NFL team."

    Me, too. Made me think of one of Robin Williams' lines about the decor at Graceland, "I didn't know Ray Charles had a decorating license." I used to see that last Bucs set and think, "I didn't know Ray Charles designed football uniforms!"

  21. 21 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

     

    I don't know if "you're wrong!", but there's no evidence to support either of your claims, and it's impossible for you to prove them.

    By the same criteria, considering that the Jets did win Super Bowl III and that the Steelers have their Super Bowl wins, there's also no evidence to support the contrary claims, and it's also impossible, therefore, for anyone to prove them as well.

     

    And, I did preface my comments with IMHO, so it's also not as though I was meaning to present them as facts. ;) 

     

    (I mean by all this, that I'm fine with anyone saying, "You're wrong!" or disagreeing with me)

  22. On 4/20/2020 at 2:28 PM, joey joe joe jr. shabadoo said:

     

    Well this look is relatively new to Jax so what they may be doing is field testing which is the best/most well received look and will just roll with that mostly in subsequent season

     

    Who are we kidding they're always going to be mixing/matching because "swag" or "fire"

    And THIS is exactly what makes the Falcons new set so damned awful -- I believe that Atlanta could, if we include sock options, become the first NFL team to wear a completely different uniform for every single game in a season. I'm not saying that they necessarily will mix and match that much, but they absolutely could do it if they wanted to. (Quietly thinks: I HOPE they do NOT do this!)

     

    There are other reasons the Falcons redesign is bad, but this is near the top of the list IMHO.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.